On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 18:08:33 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:48:48 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Of course not. They are kept in a prison.

They enjoy it.

No surprise the likes of you believes that.

You can tell when a bird is happy. Ones in small cages without much attention are not happy. Mine are in an indoor aviary and have the company of other birds aswell as me.

--
Women are like a pack of cards... you need a heart to love them, diamonds to marry them, a club to kill them and a spade to bury them.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 18:06:40 +0100, parrot liberation front wrote:

On 12/10/2015 17:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:48:48 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Of course not. They are kept in a prison.

They enjoy it.

Squark Squark... die human die!

They do not bite the hand that feeds them.

--
A note left for a pianist from his wife: "Gone Chopin, have Liszt, Bach in a Minuet."

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
They ask you if you have a car in the car park. If the answer is yes,
only then ask for the number, and they type it in.

I'm not 'supposed' to give my registration number at all.

You said in your original post that you were. You knew the system. You
knew the rules. You knew the score.

I knew what it was the last time I visited them. For all I knew at the
time they might well have changed it. It's the only store I know that uses
it.

Yeah, yeah.

It was clearly in your interest
to give it to them even if they didn't specifically request it,
otherwise it was very obvious you could be accused of parking contrary
to the terms and conditions, as indeed you have been.

But I didn't break any of their regulations or whatever. The checkout
person was at fault by not checking if I had a car.

It's always someone else's fault, isn't it.

Funny that.

And now you're acting like a total dork by not simply providing a copy
of your till receipt that would settle the matter instantly.

Good. This car park company obviously expects me to do their work for
them. And may well be thinking I don't have a receipt and will pay up.
Like so many such firms.

They took a long time to send the first letter, and a long time to reply
to emails.

So what? All they asked for was a copy of your till receipt. It's not hard.

If it was something you did all by yourself at some public terminal,
it would have been my 'fault' - especially since it wasn't my first
visit with this parking scheme.

But when it's something entirely initiated by the checkout person - and
the rules could easily have changed - it is up to 'them' to do the job
properly.

It's never occurred to you to be even a tiny bit helpful then?

I'd guess you'd just roll over an pay up. Your choice.

How much does it cost to email them a copy of your till receipt?

On 12/10/2015 18:58, Norman Wells wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
They ask you if you have a car in the car park. If the answer is yes,
only then ask for the number, and they type it in.

I'm not 'supposed' to give my registration number at all.

You said in your original post that you were. You knew the system. You
knew the rules. You knew the score.

I knew what it was the last time I visited them. For all I knew at the
time they might well have changed it. It's the only store I know that
uses
it.

Yeah, yeah.

It was clearly in your interest
to give it to them even if they didn't specifically request it,
otherwise it was very obvious you could be accused of parking contrary
to the terms and conditions, as indeed you have been.

But I didn't break any of their regulations or whatever. The checkout
person was at fault by not checking if I had a car.

It's always someone else's fault, isn't it.

Funny that.

And now you're acting like a total dork by not simply providing a copy
of your till receipt that would settle the matter instantly.

Good. This car park company obviously expects me to do their work for
them. And may well be thinking I don't have a receipt and will pay up.
Like so many such firms.

They took a long time to send the first letter, and a long time to reply
to emails.

So what? All they asked for was a copy of your till receipt. It's not
hard.

If it was something you did all by yourself at some public terminal,
it would have been my 'fault' - especially since it wasn't my first
visit with this parking scheme.

But when it's something entirely initiated by the checkout person -
and
the rules could easily have changed - it is up to 'them' to do the job
properly.

It's never occurred to you to be even a tiny bit helpful then?

I'd guess you'd just roll over an pay up. Your choice.

How much does it cost to email them a copy of your till receipt?


Nothing but the stupid can't be educated.

Norman Wells wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Norman Wells wrote

The conditions may be unreasonable. The only time they're unenforceable
is if they're entirely unconscionable. You're perfectly at liberty to
contract to whatever conditions you want to. If you park there, you're
accepting the terms and conditions displayed.

OK then. The conditions say you will be beheaded if you outstay the
prescribed times. Would that be a legal contract?

At the end the day it comes down to whether the conditions are reasonable
or not.

Did you actually read what I said above?

It mangles the real story utterly.

The only time they're unenforceable is if they're entirely unconscionable.

Another pig ignorant lie. They are also unenforceable if they
are illegal or just plain silly like if one of the conditions was that
you must wear matching sox or a particular color of underwear.

Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Norman Wells wrote

The conditions may be unreasonable. The only time they're
unenforceable is if they're entirely unconscionable. You're perfectly
at liberty to contract to whatever conditions you want to. If you park
there, you're accepting the terms and conditions displayed.

OK then. The conditions say you will be beheaded if you outstay
the prescribed times. Would that be a legal contract?

At the end the day it comes down to whether the conditions are
reasonable or not.

And legal too.

They have to be legal.

So your claim that

"The only time they're unenforceable is if they're entirely
unconscionable"

has blown up in your face and covered you with black stuff, again.

But they don't have to be 'reasonable', either in your eyes or those of
the court.

Easy to claim.

Norman Wells wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Norman Wells wrote

They still have to prove that you didn’t comply with the conditions.

Which might include, for example, retaining your receipt from the shop,
or producing it on demand.

If they do, the burden of proof that you used the shop shifts to you.

So you think it perfectly reasonable to expect a customer to keep a
receipt for groceries for a couple of weeks?

It depends on what the conditions displayed actually are.

If you're supposed, for example, to give your registration number to the
cashier in the store, and you neglect to do so, then it's perfectly
reasonable.

Not if the cashier doesn’t ask for it.

It's the only proof you have.

Wrong again. The proof he has that he did shop in the store is the till
receipt.

And he is not required to prove anything, Lidl has to prove that he didn’t
and
they can't do that when they both have the proof that he did shop in the
store.

On 12/10/2015 19:38, Rod Speed wrote:
Norman Wells wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Norman Wells wrote

They still have to prove that you didn’t comply with the conditions.

Which might include, for example, retaining your receipt from the
shop, or producing it on demand.

If they do, the burden of proof that you used the shop shifts to you.

So you think it perfectly reasonable to expect a customer to keep a
receipt for groceries for a couple of weeks?

It depends on what the conditions displayed actually are.

If you're supposed, for example, to give your registration number to
the cashier in the store, and you neglect to do so, then it's
perfectly reasonable.

Not if the cashier doesn’t ask for it.

It's the only proof you have.

Wrong again. The proof he has that he did shop in the store is the till
receipt.

And he is not required to prove anything, Lidl has to prove that he
didn’t and
they can't do that when they both have the proof that he did shop in the
store.


Not Lidl, The people who issued the notices and police the car park.

Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Harold Davis wrote

How long a period of parking are you buying for the additional
"charge", colloquially referred to as a "fine"? Is that specified
on the "contract"?

When you park, you are deemed to accept the conditions on whatever
notices are displayed prominently in the car park.

Its not that black and white with unreasonable conditions.

The conditions may be unreasonable. The only time they're
unenforceable is if they're entirely unconscionable.

That is not correct.

You'll find that it is.

No I will not.

If you bother to do even some elementary searches.

Don’t need to do any search at all to know that if the
conditions say that you can only park there if you are
wearing matching sox, that that condition is unenforceable.

It would be, actually.

Nope.

Say why you think otherwise.

You made that claim, you get to do the saying.

You do not contract to hand over your first born if
you don’t actually use the store as well as the carpark.

If you park there, you're accepting the terms and conditions
displayed.

Nope, you are free to park there knowing that a
particular condition is not enforceable or is illegal.

You have such a poor grasp of the principles that your 'knowing' a
particular condition is not enforceable is of very dubious provenance
indeed. I wouldn't believe you for a moment.

Doesn’t matter what you believe. What
matters is what is enforceable and legal.

And that's what I've told you. It's not a matter of 'belief' but of
knowledge.

You haven't established that yours is knowledge.

Any charges displayed are legally enforceable.

Wrong.

Yes they are.

Nope, not when they don’t spell out clearly
under what circumstance the charge is due.

Which they invariably do of course.

Must explain why the courts have tossed out some claims.

Such as?

The ones they have tossed out for that reason.

Your having to invent ever more ludicrous scenarios to support your
argument is a clear indicator that you don't in fact have one.

Must explain why the court have tossed out some claims.

Such as?

The ones they have tossed out.

I can't educate pork.

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.

Goodbye.

Thank for running the white flag up so enthusiastically when
even you realise you can't substantiate the claims you have made.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Oh - if the parking company is going to check any receipt
provided is in fact the correct one, based on details not on
the receipt, they might as well check with no receipt at all.

They can't necessarily do that given the data privacy law.

They ask Lidl to confirm it.

Lidl isn't necessarily allowed to do that given the data privacy law.

If that is covered by the data privacy law,
so is just when I shopped there, if ever.

Lidl isn't necessarily allowed to do that given the data privacy law.

Which is just my point.

You don't have a point there.

Do you ever think before posting?

No point in asking you that, the answer is obvious.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Norman Wells wrote

If you're supposed, for example, to give your registration
number to the cashier in the store, and you neglect to do so,
then it's perfectly reasonable. It's the only proof you have.

Sigh.

They ask you if you have a car in the car park. If the answer
is yes, only then ask for the number, and they type it in.

I'm not 'supposed' to give my registration number at all.
If it was something you did all by yourself at some public
terminal, it would have been my 'fault' - especially since
it wasn't my first visit with this parking scheme.

But when it's something entirely initiated by the
checkout person - and the rules could easily have
changed - it is up to 'them' to do the job properly.

And if the rules have changed and you now have to tell the
checkout monkey your rego number without being asked,
its up to Lidl to inform their customers of that change.

If they don’t do that, that is Lidl's problem, not the customer's.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:09:10 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

You can't have a legally binding contract without being certain
it
has been read. Which would normally need a signature. And maybe
even
a witness.

Oh yes you can.

In English law a contract can be formed by just saying in "yes".

"Dave, are you free to do Everton on Saturday?"
"Yes"

Contract is formed...

Actually, that's not a contract at all. There's no offer.

There is "are you free to do Everton on Saturday" - An offer of a
days work.

There's no acceptance of any offer.

Er, what is the response "Yes" if not acceptance? It says I am free
for that job and I'm willing to do it. If I wasn't free and/or I
didn't want to do it the response would be "No".

And there's no consideration.

The normal, previously agreed, rate for the season of these jobs will
apply.

And you need all of those.

Which are all there, if not explicitly stated in the offer.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Norman Wells wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Ophelia wrote

They are free to take him to court and wear his costs when he
shows that he did use the store when he parked in their car park.

How pleased do you expect the court to be when you could
have produced your receipt for proof before it got that far?

I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone
here to examine it. What I'm not going to do is be put to any
inconvenience for something which is in no way my fault.

You would prefer to waste the court's time,

There is no court's time. No court will ever be involved, you watch.

Lidl's time,

Its the parkco that is wasting Lidl's
time asking to see the till receipt.

everyone's time,

There is no everyone's time either.

by not sorting something out that you could do very easily?

Lidl can sort it out very easily by sending someone around
to look at the till receipt or take a photo of it etc.

Why? Are you always totally obstructive and unhelpful?

He isn't totally obstructive and unhelpful. He told them
that he did shop in the store when asked whether he did.

He was free to ignore any communication from them completely.

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote

Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

I have, because so many love my trees.

And they **** all over my car too. Dogs don't.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 06:13:55 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 22:41, Rod Speed wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:24:59 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2015 12:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Not for those into what happens more than anywhere else.

Things cause noise. What's wrong with some natural surroundings
like
trees?

They have parrots in them round here. Nasty things which make a lot
of
noise. And a particularly unpleasant one.

We get lots of Parakeets around here and they make an awful
screeching
sound.

We get lots of galahs in the trees here and they make a hell of a
racket.

Not just their screeching and jabbering to each other either,
I have a big line of trees along what would otherwise be the
fence line to the park next door and when there are a hundred
or more of them in those trees as there can be at times, the
sound of them all taking off at once when I come out of the
house which has the front door on that side can be amazing.

I'd like that.

I don't mind that. Not so keen on them
all jabbering at each other for hours tho.

I fail to see people not liking birds.

You wanna try our magpies at this time of year.

Complete pain in the arse.

Agreed.

I like magpies.

I don't mind them when they behave themselves.

This time of the year they can be a complete pain in the arse.

Ophelia wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Ophelia wrote

They are free to take him to court and wear his costs when he
shows that he did use the store when he parked in their car park.

How pleased do you expect the court to be when you could have produced
your receipt for proof before it got that far?

I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone here to examine
it.

What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience for something
which is in no way my fault.

One would hope they would ask to see the evidence before they went down
the court route.

They won't be going down the court route, you watch.

I think you might be blamed for not making any effort to show it.

He told them that he did shop in the store as required.

Would you allow it to get to court?

There will be no court, you watch.

Its pure bluff.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:17:50 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 06:13:55 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 22:41, Rod Speed wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:24:59 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2015 12:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Not for those into what happens more than anywhere else.

Things cause noise. What's wrong with some natural surroundings
like
trees?

They have parrots in them round here. Nasty things which make a lot
of
noise. And a particularly unpleasant one.

We get lots of Parakeets around here and they make an awful
screeching
sound.

We get lots of galahs in the trees here and they make a hell of a
racket.

Not just their screeching and jabbering to each other either,
I have a big line of trees along what would otherwise be the
fence line to the park next door and when there are a hundred
or more of them in those trees as there can be at times, the
sound of them all taking off at once when I come out of the
house which has the front door on that side can be amazing.

I'd like that.

I don't mind that. Not so keen on them
all jabbering at each other for hours tho.

I fail to see people not liking birds.

You wanna try our magpies at this time of year.

Complete pain in the arse.

Agreed.

I like magpies.

I don't mind them when they behave themselves.

This time of the year they can be a complete pain in the arse.

Shoot them then.

--
Six stages of married life:
1: Tri-weekly
2: Try weekly
3: Try weakly
4. Try oysters
5: Try anything
6: Try to remember

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:16:05 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote

Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

I have, because so many love my trees.

And they **** all over my car too. Dogs don't.

Don't park under the trees.

I've seen dogs **** on my hedge, while on a lead! The owner didn't think it was doing anything wrong! I asked if they'd mind if I ****ed on their hedge.

--
Six stages of married life:
1: Tri-weekly
2: Try weekly
3: Try weakly
4. Try oysters
5: Try anything
6: Try to remember

Norman Wells wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Norman Wells wrote

If you're supposed, for example, to give your registration number to the
cashier in the store, and you neglect to do so, then it's perfectly
reasonable. It's the only proof you have.

Sigh.

They ask you if you have a car in the car park. If the answer is yes,
only then ask for the number, and they type it in.

I'm not 'supposed' to give my registration number at all.

You said in your original post that you were.

He said nothing of the sort. He said that the cashier
had previously asked whether he had a car in the
carpark and what the rego number was if he said yes.

You knew the system.

He knew what the system had been, but is welcome
to assume that the system had changed and that
either Lidl no longer checked everyone because
of the clerical effort involved, or they had worked
out a better way to check if those who had parked
in their carpark had used the store, like for example
keeping track of which customers had previously told
the store of their rego number so they didn’t need
to ask all customers every time they used the store
and wore the fact that not all customers always use
the same car every time they use their carpark.

For all he knows, they could have had someone
take issue with them when he could not show
that he had actually bought something, but
had visited the store when his car was in the
carpark and found that that Lidl store didn’t
have what he wanted to buy, so he didn’t use
the checkout and so couldn’t provide his rego
to the cashier. And Lidl had stopped asking for
rego numbers because of they were aware of
that big hole in their system.

You knew the rules.

You don’t know that there was that rule. For all you know
they may well have told their cashiers to ask that question
and it’s the cashier that failed to do that on that occasion.

Or whether the rules had changed either.

You knew the score.

There is no score to know in that immutable sense.

It was clearly in your interest to give it to them even if they didn't
specifically request it,

Not if they had stopped checking who in the carpark
had used the store because they had found out that
few used the carpark and not the store, so the effort
of keeping track of all those rego numbers wasn’t
worth the effort or they had been told that that
was no longer legal under the data privacy law etc.

otherwise it was very obvious you could be accused of parking contrary to
the terms and conditions, as indeed you have been.

And he told them that he did not do anything
contrary to the terms and conditions.

He is not under any legal obligation to say anything
at all, he is welcome to ignore any communication
from then knowing that that is pure bluff.

And now you're acting like a total dork by not simply providing a copy of
your till receipt that would settle the matter instantly.

He is happy to show them the till receipt if they get
off their lard arses and come around to look at it.

Its not up to him to make it easy for Lidl to check
that he did shop in the store when he had a car
in their carpark. All he has to do legally is shop
in the store if he parks in the carpark.

If it was something you did all by yourself at some public terminal, it
would have been my 'fault' - especially since it wasn't my first visit
with this parking scheme.

But when it's something entirely initiated by the checkout person - and
the rules could easily have changed - it is up to 'them' to do the job
properly.

It's never occurred to you to be even a tiny bit helpful then?

He did that, he told them that he did use the
shop when his car was parked in their carpark.

They want proof ? That's their problem, not his.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:17:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 15:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Because they are prisoners and have no choice.

Why do people put dogs on leads?

"Dogs are supposed to live in packs of other dogs, running wild. Not sat in
a house all day".
"We should be allowed to do as we wish within reason. For example":
"Smoke weed in a public place, drive as fast as we like, and do both of
those stark naked. Oh and **** in public".

(Peter Hucker)

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 12/10/2015 16:42, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:40:00 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 16:24, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:17:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 15:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Because they are prisoners and have no choice.

Why do people put dogs on leads?

For safety reasons.

Sentences ending with the word "reasons" don't actually give the reason.

The reasons are obvious to anyone.

Is your life that boring that you must continually feed the insanity of
Peter Hucker?

Norman Wells wrote
michael adams wrote
Norman Wells wrote Dave Plowman (News)
wrote

What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience for something
which is in no way my fault.

You would prefer to waste the court's time, Lidl's time, everyone's
time,

It's Lidl's agents who are wasting everybody's time by automatically
asuming that the OP is lying.

They haven't done anything of the sort.

Corse they have. He told them when asked that he
did use the store when his car was in the carpark.

They aren't prepared to accept his word on that,
or even to check their own records to see what
card he used the last time he used their carpark
and did tell the cashier when asked what his car
rego number was. They can confirm what he said
to them with their own records, no need for him
to show them the till receipt from the day in dispute.

All they appear to have done is ask for proof of purchase on the day in
question,

When they can confirm using their own records
that he did use the shop on that day by seeing
which card was used one one of the previous
occasions when he did tell the cashier what
his rego was when asked.

which in fact he has but for some bizarre reason refuses to supply.

Nothing bizarre about knowing that
they can confirm what they want
confirmed using their own records.

He clearly prefers conflict and obstinacy,

He clearly doesn’t when he did do what he
doesn’t have to do, tell them that he did use
the store when his car was in their carpark.

Something they could have done using their own records.

which helps no-one.

It helps everyone if they get a clue and use their
own records instead of wasting everyone's time
working out if he did use the store when he had
a car in the carpark.

If Lidl insisted on frisking everyone leaving their stores (not everyone
of whom will even have bought anything) on the assumption that some of
them will be shoplifters, then people would be up in arms.

So what's the difference here ?

What's the similarity?

Checking everyone to catch a tiny minority flouting the rules.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:49:08 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:17:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 15:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Because they are prisoners and have no choice.

Why do people put dogs on leads?

"Dogs are supposed to live in packs of other dogs, running wild. Not sat in
a house all day".
"We should be allowed to do as we wish within reason. For example":
"Smoke weed in a public place, drive as fast as we like, and do both of
those stark naked. Oh and **** in public".

Yes. How are these relevant?

--
O'Hare Approach Control to a 747: "United 329 heavy, your traffic is a Fokker, one o'clock, three miles, Eastbound."
United 239: "Approach, I've always wanted to say this... I've got the little Fokker in sight."

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:16:05 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote

Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

I have, because so many love my trees.

And they **** all over my car too. Dogs don't.

Don't park under the trees.

I've seen dogs **** on my hedge, while on a lead! The owner didn't think
it was doing anything wrong! I asked if they'd mind if I ****ed on their
hedge.

No you didn't.
You haven't got the guts to ask that.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:58:02 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:16:05 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote

Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

I have, because so many love my trees.

And they **** all over my car too. Dogs don't.

Don't park under the trees.

I've seen dogs **** on my hedge, while on a lead! The owner didn't think
it was doing anything wrong! I asked if they'd mind if I ****ed on their
hedge.

No you didn't.
You haven't got the guts to ask that.

I don't live in a pikey area like you, the chances of getting attacked are slim.

--
Old statisticians never die. They just get broken down by age and sex.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:55:09 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 12/10/2015 16:42, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:40:00 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 16:24, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:17:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 15:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Because they are prisoners and have no choice.

Why do people put dogs on leads?

For safety reasons.

Sentences ending with the word "reasons" don't actually give the reason.

The reasons are obvious to anyone.

Is your life that boring that you must continually feed the insanity of
Peter Hucker?

You're the one that replied to all my newsgroup posts for a year even though you knew you were killfiled. I call that stalking. Will you sleep with me?

--
Old statisticians never die. They just get broken down by age and sex.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

Nope, they **** on him. That's why he smells so bad and is completely
unemployable.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:02:59 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

Nope, they **** on him. That's why he smells so bad and is completely
unemployable.

They do not **** on me.

--
Q. What's the difference between a brown-noser and a ****-head?
A. Depth perception.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:55:09 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 12/10/2015 16:42, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:40:00 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 16:24, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:17:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 15:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the
pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Because they are prisoners and have no choice.

Why do people put dogs on leads?

For safety reasons.

Sentences ending with the word "reasons" don't actually give the
reason.

The reasons are obvious to anyone.

Is your life that boring that you must continually feed the insanity of
Peter Hucker?

You're the one that replied to all my newsgroup posts for a year even
though you knew you were killfiled. I call that stalking. Will you sleep
with me?

I did not know that I was killfiled. Fact is that I have been taking the
**** out of you for years and you are too stupid to know it.
Oh, so I'm not killfiled now then?
So, why did you email me?
And yes, I will sleep with you.


--
Old statisticians never die. They just get broken down by age and sex.

Norman Wells wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Norman Wells wrote

I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone here to
examine it. What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience
for something which is in no way my fault.

You would prefer to waste the court's time, Lidl's time, everyone's
time, by not sorting something out that you could do very easily?

Oh yes. And expect vast damages for them wasting my time too.

Damages don't come into it.

That was a joke, Joyce.

Given your behaviour in this, you won't even get your costs either.

It will never get anywhere near any court, you watch.

All you're doing is causing a pointless waste of everyone's time,
including your own,

He isn't wasting any of his time not
providing them with the till receipt.

And it's Lidl wasting everyone's time including
their own, by not using their own data to see
that he did use the shop when his car was in the
carpark, from the car rego number he gave he
cashier on a previous occasion when asked for it.

to no purpose.

It might well see them get a clue and use their
own records and realise that that is a much
more effective way of checking who used
the shop when they had a car in the carpark.

And only actually ask the individual if the car
rego has never been supplied to them before,
and the same card wasn’t used previously.

Why? Are you always totally obstructive and unhelpful?

With companies like this parking lot, yes.

Who have merely made a simple and straightforward request to you for
information,

And got a simple and straightforward answer
that he was under no legal obligation to
provide, that yes, he did use the shop when
his car was in the carpark on that occasion.

Something they could have discovered using
their own records.

as one might hope, before action.

There will be no action, you watch.

And it's information you have and could easily provide.

It's information Lidl has and can use without asking him at all.

Bear in mind, if the parking rules weren't enforced,

He broke no parking rules.

And they can be enforced without asking him anything after
the event, and much more cheaply and automatically too.

you might well find you couldn't park.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:49:08 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:17:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 15:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Because they are prisoners and have no choice.

Why do people put dogs on leads?

"Dogs are supposed to live in packs of other dogs, running wild. Not sat
in
a house all day".
"We should be allowed to do as we wish within reason. For example":
"Smoke weed in a public place, drive as fast as we like, and do both of
those stark naked. Oh and **** in public".

(Peter Hucker)

Yes. How are these relevant?

There, I've put your name back under your quotes.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 12/10/2015 15:25, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 06:13:55 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 22:41, Rod Speed wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:24:59 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2015 12:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Not for those into what happens more than anywhere else.

Things cause noise. What's wrong with some natural surroundings
like
trees?

They have parrots in them round here. Nasty things which make a
lot of
noise. And a particularly unpleasant one.

We get lots of Parakeets around here and they make an awful
screeching
sound.

We get lots of galahs in the trees here and they make a hell of a
racket.

Not just their screeching and jabbering to each other either,
I have a big line of trees along what would otherwise be the
fence line to the park next door and when there are a hundred
or more of them in those trees as there can be at times, the
sound of them all taking off at once when I come out of the
house which has the front door on that side can be amazing.

I'd like that.

I don't mind that. Not so keen on them
all jabbering at each other for hours tho.

I fail to see people not liking birds.

You wanna try our magpies at this time of year.

Complete pain in the arse.

Agreed.

I like magpies.

What do they taste like?

Chicken, stupid.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:17:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 15:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Because they are prisoners and have no choice.

Why do people put dogs on leads?

Because the stupid law requires that.

And I don't.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:02:59 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

Nope, they **** on him. That's why he smells so bad and is completely
unemployable.

They do not **** on me.

I wish that I had studied harder and got a degree.
PMSL @ Mr Hucker

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:17:54 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:49:08 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:17:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 15:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Because they are prisoners and have no choice.

Why do people put dogs on leads?

"Dogs are supposed to live in packs of other dogs, running wild. Not sat
in
a house all day".
"We should be allowed to do as we wish within reason. For example":
"Smoke weed in a public place, drive as fast as we like, and do both of
those stark naked. Oh and **** in public".

(Peter Hucker)

Yes. How are these relevant?

There, I've put your name back under your quotes.

Yes Mr Steven Pounder?

--
All the American flags on the moon have been bleached by radiation from the sun (which can only be a good thing).

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:20:21 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:02:59 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

Nope, they **** on him. That's why he smells so bad and is completely
unemployable.

They do not **** on me.

I wish that I had studied harder and got a degree.
PMSL @ Mr Hucker

I have a degree.

--
The greatest distance attained for a jet of semen that has ever been recorded is 18'9" (5.71 m) which was achieved with a "substantial" amount of seminal fluid by Horst Schultz.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:19:50 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:17:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 15:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Because they are prisoners and have no choice.

Why do people put dogs on leads?

Because the stupid law requires that.

And I don't.

There is no such law.

--
The greatest distance attained for a jet of semen that has ever been recorded is 18'9" (5.71 m) which was achieved with a "substantial" amount of seminal fluid by Horst Schultz.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:15:16 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:55:09 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 12/10/2015 16:42, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:40:00 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 16:24, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:17:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 15:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the
pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Because they are prisoners and have no choice.

Why do people put dogs on leads?

For safety reasons.

Sentences ending with the word "reasons" don't actually give the
reason.

The reasons are obvious to anyone.

Is your life that boring that you must continually feed the insanity of
Peter Hucker?

You're the one that replied to all my newsgroup posts for a year even
though you knew you were killfiled. I call that stalking. Will you sleep
with me?

I did not know that I was killfiled.

You were told. And you should have noticed I didn't reply for a year.

Fact is that I have been taking the
**** out of you for years and you are too stupid to know it.

I know you are just playing and love me really.

Oh, so I'm not killfiled now then?

Your repeated lies about me were making me want to expose your stupidity.

So, why did you email me?

To annoy you.

And yes, I will sleep with you.

Am I better looking than your wife?

--
"If you have voted after you are dead, there is a good strong possibility that you did something illegal." -- Kevin Shwedo, California DMV director

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 00:21:19 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:41:35 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:24:59 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2015 12:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Not for those into what happens more than anywhere else.

Things cause noise. What's wrong with some natural surroundings
like
trees?

They have parrots in them round here. Nasty things which make a lot
of
noise. And a particularly unpleasant one.

We get lots of Parakeets around here and they make an awful
screeching
sound.

We get lots of galahs in the trees here and they make a hell of a
racket.

Not just their screeching and jabbering to each other either,
I have a big line of trees along what would otherwise be the
fence line to the park next door and when there are a hundred
or more of them in those trees as there can be at times, the
sound of them all taking off at once when I come out of the
house which has the front door on that side can be amazing.

I'd like that.

I don't mind that. Not so keen on them
all jabbering at each other for hours tho.

Easy enough to frighten birds off.

Not these. My trees leave all the rest for
dead, that's why they all congregate there.

You put the trees there.

Yes, but I didn't realise that hundreds
of them would congregate there.

And you could put something up the trees to scare them.

Nope, nothing would do that. And the trees are much
too big for that anyway. Hundreds of feet now.

Can't legally do the same to people though.

You can actually.

How?

By doing what you do, walk around covered in
parrot ****, completely naked, with flecks of foam
about the lips and rabid blood shot eyes, shouting
to yourself about everyone being out to get you.

I fail to see people not liking birds.

You wanna try our magpies at this time of year.

Complete pain in the arse.

No birds would ever bother me.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I like birds, why would they bother me?

Because that's what magpies do at this time of year.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 00:01:53 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:07:25 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:37:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 17:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 22:20:33 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 20:59:58 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 05:34:03 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 21:38:48 +0100, newshound
wrote:

On 09/10/2015 21:25, charles wrote:
In article , Tough Guy no. 1265

wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 21:11:19 +0100, charles

wrote:

In article , Tough Guy no. 1265
wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:39:24 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
charles wrote:

How do they link your car registration with your
payment
card?
Did you give them your card number in the first
email?

at the branch I use, the cashier asks for your car
number
but
it
doesn't end up on the receipt - but the date & time of
purchase
does.


I don't use shops that have these parking systems.

It's actually less trouble than the close by ASDA, where
you
have
to
get and display a free ticket from a machine.

They obviously have to control parking in some way, as
it's
beside
an extremely busy station, with no car park.

Then the station should build themselves a car park. Why
did the
council approve a station with no car park?

That's rather like asking why Windsor Castle was built so
close to
Heathrow airport.

No it isn't.

Since the station waa built before the age of the motor
car -
and
Town
&
Country planning did not exist - it is very similar

Yes indeed. When I was a lad (1950's) my local suburban
commuter
station
(Ewell West) had a couple of dozen car parking spaces, but it
was
seldom
more than half full. Most of those commuters who were lucky
enough to
have a car left it at home with the wife.

All these problems are solved by not living so close to each
other. I
don't have parking problems in Scotland.

But you do have a hell of a problem getting
and keeping a well paid job or even one
that you would be happy to do for free.

No more than I would in London.

Much more than you would in London in fact.

Statistics show otherwise.

Like hell they do.

Don't make me google it for you. There's a map somewhere that shows
it's the same percentage throughout the UK.

And in London you need a much better paid job as the house
prices
are
stupid.

And there are far more of those there than where you are now.

Why get paid more just to pay more?

Because it beats being on benefits.

In London you couldn't live on benefits.

Many do.

Impossible, the mortgage could not be paid.

They don't have a mortgage, they rent.

And what about those who had a mortgage and a job they lost?

The mortgage company gets the house if they
didn't have mortgage insurance that covers that.

Exactly.

No exactly about it if they have enough
of a clue to have mortgage insurance.
They end up much better off than you are.